If you vote for an empty suit with a smile the war hero with the experience destroys him and you end up with 4 more years of Bush.

The media loves McCain.  They won't unless there's some real change go after him.  So Obama will have to live with the same things HRC has had too.  He will try and get the media to go after McCain and he will find them not amplifying it for him as they were when he was up against HRC.  

Will the media still love Obama?  We've heard how Obama has been standoffish to the media.  One thing the media loves about McCain is how he is very open to them.  They protect him.  Which side do you think the media will fall on?  I think Obama will have to also get used to the media also picking on every little thing he does and says just like HRC has had to live with.  

There's a huge disparity in the caucus results, and the primary results on the democrat side here in Washington...

WA Primary: (62% counted)
Obama:   50%   214,250
Clinton: 47%   197,980

WA Caucus:
Obama:   68%
Clinton: 31%

For starters, here is a great YouTube on how to rebut the "experience" attack.  (Note: it's Bill Clinton rebutting the "lack of experience" charge against Bush).

And, yes, Obama has (and will have) more gaffes.  But McCain's is racking up quite a few, too (in Iraq for 100 years; don't know much about economics; voted for the tax cuts before he was against them; etc etc)

I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.

Hillary should stop being so soft on Obama.  She should give him a taste of what he faces if he wins the nomination.

Otherwise, I also figured it was likely that TX and OH would be Clinton's next wins, and she does need them. If she loses one of them, she's done. If she wins both, she's got a shot still if she takes PA. Her path is narrowing heavily, but it's not entirely blocked yet.

Perhaps she made the best decision she could, given her finances at the time, or the demographics.  But, in any event, ceding four weeks worth of losses is tough for any candidate to overcome.

I think the misogyny and dogwhistle charges against him are a complete crock, but we need not revist that argument.

He has won the nomination in the best possible way - by actually exciting not only our base, but independents too. By raising hopes and expectations he is insuring that absolutely necessary ingredient that has long been missing - namely pressure from underneath, pressure from the people to keep him honest and on point while in office, and toward the elected officials in Congress, from both parties. In other words, real democratic (note the small d) involvement. It is remarkable, almost unheard of, for a presidential candidate to invite that pressure onto himself. The usual approach, as Hillary has done, is to simply claim that "I am the best", "vote for me", "see ya in four years".

By raising hopes he is raising the bar for himself. It will not be some heartbreaking bubble burst if he disappoints - it will be focused angry pressure on him to deliver. And he knows perfectly well that that is what he is setting himself up for, and I think he welcomes that. Because he has no intention to disappoint, and he knows he can use that spirit of expectation as pressure against the Congress, and the special interests.

It's impossible to tell. HRC has been running against both Obama and the media for the last month and a half. Obama has been assisted at every turn by a complicit media.

Hear that.  

Got it.

It's not accurate to say he's done nothing in Illinois either -- it was his bill that got Ill. to be the first state in the US to require that cops tape certain interrogations and confessions.  This has led to better police practice, a higher conviction rate for those who are guilty, and a reduction in coerced confessions; he was behind that state Earned Income Tax Credit, which has given tax cuts to poor families across the state;  he also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education.

He says he wants to pick justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito.

What part of "half the country has hated her for 15 years" do you guys not get?  Moreover, even if there wasn't this immense disdain for her, she just doesn't have the qualities a legitimate candidate for president has:

1. No personality (and yes, that does matter when you're running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!)

2. Can't even manage a primary campaign (if you haven't read the Atlantic Monthly articles about how poorly her campaign has been run - and how similar it sounds to the Bush administration's top-down "don't tell the boss any bad news" environment - then it must be because your friends don't want to sent it to you for fear of ruining your life)

3. Her "35 years of experience" claim doesn't even mention her most legitimate period of experience - her years working for the prestigious Rose Law Firm.  An honest campaign would have proudly trumpeted that she was their first female partner (in an era when that was a huge deal!) . . . but no, she had to claim she just did public interest law the whole time.  It's just embarrassing, especially when Bill says "she could have" gone into corporate law.  To paraphrase Obama, "YES SHE DID!"